JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is directed against the against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge, Kulithurai, dated 20.02.2015 made in A.S.No.60/1999 reserving the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Kulithurai, in O.S.No.46/1986 dated 11.09.1999. 2. The defendant in O.S.No.46/1986 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kulithurai, is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the children of the sixth respondent who is the wife of the plaintiff K.Parameswaran Thambi. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 10 cents, out of 2.55 acres in Old S.No.6511 along with building S.No.4/78 of Puloor Panchayat. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The plaint schedule property originally belongs to the plaintiff in the year 1954, he has constructed a building in the property which was assessed to Killyoor Panchayat and the Door number was 21/112 as per assessment number 2587 and the said Killyoor panchayat was bifurcated into Paloor Panchyat and Killyoor Panchayat. The plaint schedule property falls under Paloor Panchayat and a new door number was assigned as 4/78. The property originally leased out to non-departmental post office from December 1967 to November 1978 for a monthly rent of Rs.45/-. Subsequently, the same was leased out to one Dhasan who vacated during July 1979. From the month of November 1979, as per the request of the defendant, the property was leased out to him for a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The defendant paid the monthly rent upto June 1984 and consented to vacate the premises for renovation in 1984 itself but the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The plaintiff came to know that one Velayuthan Nair, who is in inmical terms with the plaintiff supported the defendant from not vacating the premises. Hence, a police complaint was lodged on 23.07.1984. The police compromised the matter and asked the defendant to pay the monthly rent. Thereafter several demands were made. The defendant sought for time for payment of rent. To the shock and surprise, in May 1985, the defendant refused to pay the rent and questioned the title of the plaintiff over the property. Plaintiff caused suit notice on 19.06.1985 and received a frivolous reply on 12.07.1985. Thereafter several demands were made. The defendant sought for time for payment of rent. To the shock and surprise, in May 1985, the defendant refused to pay the rent and questioned the title of the plaintiff over the property. Plaintiff caused suit notice on 19.06.1985 and received a frivolous reply on 12.07.1985. In the reply, it was stated that the defendant purchased the property from the real owner, but neither his vendor's detail nor the details of the sale deed was disclosed in the reply notice. After due enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that a fraudulent sale deed was executed by the said Velayuthan Nair to the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and future mense profits and other reliefs. 4. The brief facts of the case of the respondent in written statement is as follows: The plaint schedule property and the building bearing Door No.4/178 situated therein never belonged to the plaintiff and so the allegations that he leased out the building to the Postal Department and then to one K.Dhasan are false. The plaintiff has no connection whatsoever with the suit property and the building. The building was not put up by the plaintiff. The defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property and the building. The former door number of the building was not 21/112. The suit property and the building formerly belonged to Velayudhan Nair, son of Thanupillai, who purchased the same from its original owner in the year 1963. While Velayudhan Nair was in possession of the suit property and the building as absolute owner, he executed a sale deed in respect of the same in favour of the defendant on 24.07.1984 and the defendant got absolute title and possession over the suit property and the building. The defendant is residing in the building with his family as owner. Though the area of the suit property, as per record is 5 ¾ cents, as per lay out, it measures 7 ½ cents and it is surrounded by a wall defined as compound wall. Thus, the suit property lies as a specific plot and it is the house and house site of the defendant. Though the area of the suit property, as per record is 5 ¾ cents, as per lay out, it measures 7 ½ cents and it is surrounded by a wall defined as compound wall. Thus, the suit property lies as a specific plot and it is the house and house site of the defendant. There was an earlier suit in O.S.No.1 of 1970 on the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram, filed by the plaintiff for partition of the suit survey number property namely Old Survey No.6511 having a total extent of 2 acres 55 cents and other properties. The suit survey number property was plaint item No.1 in the said suit. As per the preliminary decree passed in the said suit, which was confirmed upto the Honourable High Court, the plaintiff was declared entitled to only 3 3/8 cents on the western portion of the northern 20 cents in the suit survey number property. That 3 3/8 cents of the plaintiff lies north of the road that runs through the suit survey number property. The property described in the plaint where the building bearing Door No.4/78 is situated, absolutely belongs to the defendant, which lies south of the road and on the south eastern portion of the suit property. The plaintiff has no manner of right or interest over the suit property. The defendant's vendor was a party in the above said suit O.S.No.1 of 1970. The title and possession of the defendant's vendor over the suit property was upheld in the said suit. The plaintiff has no manner of right or interest over the suit property and the building. The question of plaintiff demanding the defendant to vacate the building or the defendant agreeing to vacate the building does not arise at all. Such allegation is meaningless and without substance. It is the right of the defendant to thatch the building and to do other maintenance work. The sale deed in favour of the defendant is valid and binding on the plaintiff and all others. The plaintiff is bound by the decree in O.S.No.1 of 1970. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit property from it lawful owner, the defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled to get declaration in respect of the suit property and the building. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any arrears of rent or mesne profits. 5. The plaintiff is bound by the decree in O.S.No.1 of 1970. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit property from it lawful owner, the defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled to get declaration in respect of the suit property and the building. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any arrears of rent or mesne profits. 5. On the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined and 19 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defendant one witness was examined and 16 exhibits were marked. The trial Court, on 11.09.1999, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.60 of 1999 before the Sub-Court, Kulithurai. On 20.02.2007, the said Appeal was allowed. Against the said judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant herein. 6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration: (a) Whether the First Appellate Court is correct by granting declaratory relief in favour of plaintiff in spite of discrepancies in the description of suit property ? (b) Whether the First Appellate Court is correct by relying upon Ex.A7 alone while reaching the conclusion with regard to title? (c) Whether the Ex.A7 Judgement will be binding upon the defendant? 7. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the defendant is in possession of the property ever since the date of purchase i.e., 24.07.1984 and denied the allegation of the lease and also denied the earlier door Number 21/112 of the house in dispute and relied that the present door number is 4/78 of Paloor Village. As per the judgment in O.S.No.1 of 1970 (Ex.A.7), the vendor of the defendant is having right in Old Sy.No.6511 with respect to 5 ¾ cents but after purchase, the defendant is in possession of 7½ cents. As per the said judgement, the plaintiff is having a right on the northern side of road but the plaint schedule property is situated on the western side and also denied the plaintiff's right of recovery. 8. The learned counsel for respondent would submit that the plaintiff's right have been admitted in Ex.A7, the judgment in O.S.No.1 of 1970. Since the defendant also relies on Ex.A7 to trace his vendor's title, the said document is binding on both. 8. The learned counsel for respondent would submit that the plaintiff's right have been admitted in Ex.A7, the judgment in O.S.No.1 of 1970. Since the defendant also relies on Ex.A7 to trace his vendor's title, the said document is binding on both. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his right over Survey No.6511 was confirmed in Ex.A7, declaring his right over the purchased property of 3 3/8 cents and admitting the mortgage right of plaintiff with respect to 40 cents. Ex.A24 in O.S.No.1 of 1970 is a sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff's father. Para 47 of Ex.A7 reads as follows: “Under these circumstances, I find on issue 4 that Thanuvan Raman's branch is entitled to include the whole of the suit property in their partition under Ex.B2 and on issue 5, that the plaintiff is entitled to the western 3 3/8 cents in the northern 20 cents of suit 1st item by virtue of his purchase under Ex.A.24 and it is left open to enforce his right of Ex.A24 mortgage right in a separate proceedings”. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the second appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the documents available on records. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 10. It is seen that the vendor of the defendant was also a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.1 of 1970 namely D15 and the right of D15 with respect to 5 ¾ cents out of the entire extent was also affirmed in the judgment, but it has been stated that D15 was entitled to get his property after redeeming the mortgage. Ex.A.6 is the judgment of O.S.No.424 of 1963, the O.S.No.424 of 1963 was filed by the defendants vendor Velayuthan Nair (D15 in A7) for redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession but the same was dismissed as premature but subsequently, no proceedings were initiated by the vendor of the defendants to get possession from the plaintiff and now, the mortgage in favour for the plaintiff becomes a time barred one and cannot be redeemed hereafter and thus the plaintiff obtained absolute right, title over the property. E.A1, A2, A3 proves that plaintiff was in possession of the property. E.A1, A2, A3 proves that plaintiff was in possession of the property. Further in the year 1985, the defendant managed to obtain some tax receipt from panchayat in his name against which the plaintiff submitted a petition before the panchyat challenging the tax receipt in the name of the defendant and a detailed enquiry was conducted by the authorities concerned after serving due notice to the defendants also. The panchayat president on 19.09.1986 passed an order as per Ex.A.11 affirming the right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and cancelled the erring entries of the defendant and that has become final because the defendant failed to proceed with appeal proceedings. The specific case of the defendant is that he entered possession of the property under his sale deed dated 24.07.1984 but to prove the plaintiff's case and to disprove the defendants allegation the plaintiff have marked Ex.A19 the voters list in the year 1980 which categorically mentioned that the defendant, his wife and his son in Serial No.752 to 754 was residing at the plaint schedule house so the plaintiff has categorically proved his case. The defendant is a tenant under him from 1979 onwards. The operative portion of the judgment states from para No.9 has not been reasonly countered by the appellant herein because paragraph Nos. 12 and 15 categorically supports the plaintiff's case but no substantial question of law has been framed to that extent. Ex.A19 is another important document viz., the order in CMP 9991 of 1982 in S.A.No.762 of 1980 passed by this Court in the second appeal against O.S.No.1 of 1970 where this Court has recorded the undertaking given by the vendor of the defendant, T. Velayuthan Nair, that he will not disturb the possession of the plaintiff. So the vendor of the defendant in several occasions admitted plaintiff's possession over the suit property but never taken any steps to redeem the property from the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's version that he obtained property after the sale deed is totally invalid before the eye of law and the case of the plaintiff is more probable on the basis of the documents and evidence and so the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession with arrears of rent. 11. Therefore, the defendant's version that he obtained property after the sale deed is totally invalid before the eye of law and the case of the plaintiff is more probable on the basis of the documents and evidence and so the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession with arrears of rent. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit at all in the Second Appeal and I answer all the substantial questions of law against the appellant. 12. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.